Photography

Any thoughts, critiques of these 2 images from technical to emotional please. Do not hold back, tell it like you see it.

Love #2 Framed Beautifully !!! Contrast and lighting are great !!

#1 makes me feellike there is too much going on but that may be just me

Number 1 has three subjects in it... The most powerful is the tree branches which are in sharp focus, the church which has a softer focus comes in second and the third is almost overlooked because it is so subtle... the dramatic shadows of the trees in the church.

I suppose one could argue that the branches are necessary to produce the shadows but - if you came out of hyperfocus and placed a narrower DOF on the front of the church you might be able to promote this subject into number one position. Eliminating the branches all together might work just as well. I love the shadows of the tree on the church.

Number two is also a bit busy again with four subjects. I can see an artistic tie in for all four and the tree branches in this case are just part of the background.

Number 2 does nothing for me at all. Too dark. I think number 1 would look cool with it being a full moon and making the same shadows

I like the first one with the shadows on the church, but I do not like the branches in the photo. The 2nd one IMO is too dark.

What fabulous feedback, thank you all. If you will allow a block reply?
The darkness in both was intended, both in terms of contrast and emotion. The bw on my back lit monitor has detail in the shadows, but the monitor remains uncalibrated and I've had problems with contrast in the past so it could translate poorly.
I agree with all that no.1 is very fussy and difficult, there is a lot going on. Charles has given an enlightened and in my opinion well explained comment and I concur with it all.
The tree branches at the top of no.1 were unavoidable from this position everything else was intentional and compromised simplicity. I won't bore you with why I took them the way I did.
As always I'm grateful for all your feedback as it helps me understand what messages you receive as viewers.
Without credentials in art or photography I rely on others. Again Charles thanks for seeing an artistic link. Damien Hurst reckons there is no art in any subject. The art is brought by the viewer. Whom am I to argue:agree:
Back to the drawing board for me.
Ned

Looks like I'm late to the party (My penalty for living on the westcoast of North America)

I agree with the other comments on #1 being overloaded.

However #2 is pretty darn close to goodness. My thoughts are that there is still a clutter factor holding it back. My fix would be to either (but not both): 1) Change the camera location so that the tombstones in the foreground are gone, or are much smaller (telephoto solution). 2) Change the time of day for the shot so that the shadows on the face of the church do not cover the whole church. As the shot stands, the prominent tombstones and the shadows kind of get in each other's way.

Kelly

The first one seems like the focus needs to be on the shadows/the church. I'm assuming you converted the second one; to me the conversions look more grayscale than B&W. I like the composition of the second and in the first one I see what you're going for. If you photograph this subject again I think you're on the right track, it's a matter of getting the image more clear and figuring out settings for what seems to be some mixed lighting conditions.

I agree with Charles on No1, and with his approach to modify it. I would also straighten it both horizontally and vertically, to increase its weight. In no2, I think it is the composition that detracts from the whole- it doesn't seem to allow the eye to linger, but leads it out of the frame.

On 1 I am in total agreement with Charles, on 2 I am very biased when it comes to B&W as I love it and to me it is obvious the darkness is intentional, so for me its a winner.

Woweee, what great feedback again!
In the attached shot there's revamp incorporating some of your comments. Shot at the same time as t'others.

Kelly, yes yes yes, barriers to the church! but too many, shadows,darkness, no straight and narrow. I removed some of them in later shots. Johns right about the converging verticals, only acceptable in worms eye view from the foot of say the Eiffel Tower, and as for leading the eye out of the frame, completely unintentional on my part. photobod, yes I like darkness as well however the extent I apply it is not properly quantifiable until i sort my monitor calibration. I so seldom print anything I don't have a printer its a real handicap to seeing what things look like. icepics the softer focus building was partly intentional in as much as it didn't matter as the emphasis was on barriers...well at least in my mind, and yes later converted to b/w but considered as shooting.

Shot 1 was was purely speculative and is too "heavy" with too many factors trying to convey thoughts and emotions. shot 2 was more considered as the thoughts bumped round my head on site. The shadow on the building was supposed to convey something sinister as well as being recognisable as a tree.

I probably over complicate the whole process in this insanity I carry (thats a metaphor for passion of photography by the way) wish sometimes I could throw a switch to a simpler approach. As always i'm grateful for you taking time to view and comment. I don't think the images here were really about religion or churches/architecture per say but a metaphor for my struggle with photography. All subconscious.....Freud could't straighten me out I'm afraid.

Here's the simpler shot with less time spent developing it.

Humm, I had not heard of the "barrier" concept before. Humm.

Anyhoo, I think #3 is a big improvement. Got those pesky tombstones to stand back out of the way. Still think the shadows on the church are too heavy handed. It would be an interesting exercise to re-shoot this, same time of day, but at 10 minute intervals to see just what shadow position would give the nicest effect. My monitor is calibrated, tones are pretty close for a low-key picture, which I assume was the goal. The darkest edges of the shadows (structural shadows, not tree shadows) could be brought up a little. Some of the mid-tones, such as the tombstones, could be darkened a little. But that is tricky. As the sky also has these mid-tones, and it is already about bang-on where I would want it. So the mid-tone dodging would have to be exactly that, not an image wide filter.

fussy

I like this better, too. I'd still correct the verticals with a Free Transform layer, and correcting the midtone contrast is relatively easy with High Pass filter at failry high radius, followed by As If blending to apply just to the midtones.

The third one works for me as well it isn't as busy as the first one and the shadows work well